Mormon.org | What is the Mormon Church and Religion? | Mormon.org Explore JESUS CHRIST’S CHURCH Jesus Christ leads His restored Church today, and it bears His name, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Explore 10 THINGS ABOUT MISSIONARIES What is it that drives these young men and women to sacrifice up to two years of their lives in the service of God? Explore THE BOOK OF MORMON Discover the book that has changed the lives of millions and helped bring them closer to our Savior, Jesus Christ. Explore JESUS CHRIST Learn how our Savior and Redeemer is central to happiness in this life and in the life to come. WANT MORE INFORMATION ABOUT THE SAVIOR JESUS CHRIST? Receive our free email newsletter. Enter your email address below. Email Style Guide — The Name of the Church Topic Style Guide — The Name of the Church The official name of the Church is The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. This full name was given by revelation from God to Joseph Smith in 1838. While the term "Mormon Church" has long been publicly applied to the Church as a nickname, it is not an authorized title, and the Church discourages its use.

When writing about the Church, please follow these guidelines: In the first reference, the full name of the Church is preferred: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints." Please avoid the use of "Mormon Church," "LDS Church" or the "Church of the Latter-day Saints." When a shortened reference is needed, the terms "the Church" or "the Church of Jesus Christ" are encouraged. When referring to Church members, the term "Latter-day Saints" is preferred, though "Mormons" is acceptable. "Mormon" is correctly used in proper names such as the Book of Mormon, Mormon Tabernacle Choir or Mormon Trail, or when used as an adjective in such expressions as "Mormon pioneers." The term "Mormonism" is acceptable in describing the combination of doctrine, culture and lifestyle unique to The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. When referring to people or organizations that practice polygamy, the terms "Mormons," "Mormon fundamentalist," "Mormon dissidents," etc. are incorrect.

The Associated Press Stylebook notes: "The term Mormon is not properly applied to the other … churches that resulted from the split after [Joseph] Smith's death." The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints: Origins of the name Are Mormons Christian? The Name of the Church A church's name is meaningful because it conveys important information. From its name, we learn about the identity of believers and how they express their relationship to the divine. A name can also tell us how a church distinguishes itself from other similar faiths. In 1830, as Joseph Smith's revelations became scriptures and people warmed to this new testament, it became clear that his fledgling faith community needed a name. Joseph and early Church leaders looked to the Book of Mormon for guidance. Overview of LDS position For devout Mormons, the name of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints results from divine revelation, from the Word of God as communicated to his chosen prophet, Joseph Smith.

The name reinforces the unique and instrumental role Latter-day Saints play in the restoration of the church: "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints is the Lord's kingdom once again established on the earth, preparatory to the Second Coming of the Messiah." [1] For members, the Church's name signifies the community's special responsibility, and it designates the crucial role every member, or saint, has in bringing about God's kingdom. Name alterations occurring in its early years indicate Church leaders' inspired efforts to transmit the intentions of God in human language. Overview of Critics' position The historical record shows that the Church's name has been significantly altered. In 1830, it was first named, "Church of Christ," in 1834, the name changed to "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," and in 1838, the name changed again, to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints. Working with the contemporary primary sources, historians have noted a lack of clarity concerning the reason for these name changes. There is also scant reliable information documenting the decision-making processes followed by early Church leaders. One fact that appears indisputable is that name changes resulted from human, not divine, intervention.

For critics, these alterations are from the acts and intentions of humans motivated by perhaps social, political, and economic objectives. References "Introduction," Book of Mormon. Link is here. Contents for this page Links Member beliefs We, as Latter-day Saints, often cite the name of the church as an indication that the LDS Church is truly God's one, true church. We often say things like the Lutheran Church can't be God's church because it is named after a man, Martin Luther. The word 'Catholic' just means universal. Baptists are said to be named after John the Baptist. The true church must be named after Christ, thus the official name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". The Latter-day part added to show that it is not the original church that Christ established around 30 AD, but rather Christ's restored church in this dispensation. The Book of Mormon says that the true church must have the name of Christ in it. 3 Nephi 27:8 reads: "And how be it my church save it be called in my name?

For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel." 3 Nephi 27:8 According to the Book of Mormon, Jesus Christ revealed the name of his church to the Nephite people: the " church of Christ". "And they who were baptized in the name of Jesus were called the church of Christ." ( 3 Nephi 26:21 , bold added) "And they said unto him: Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter. And the Lord said unto them: Verily, verily, I say unto you, why is it that the people should murmur and dispute because of this thing? Have they not read the scriptures, which say ye must take upon you the name of Christ, which is my name?

For by this name shall ye be called at the last day; And whoso taketh upon him my name, and endureth to the end, the same shall be saved at the last day. Therefore, whatsoever ye shall do, ye shall do it in my name; therefore ye shall call the church in my name; and ye shall call upon the Father in my name that he will bless the church for my sake. And how be it my church save it be called in my name? For if a church be called in Moses' name then it be Moses' church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel. Verily I say unto you, that ye are built upon my gospel; therefore ye shall call whatsoever things ye do call, in my name; therefore if ye call upon the Father, for the church, if it be in my name the Father will hear you; And if it so be that the church is built upon my gospel then will the Father show forth his own works in it.

But if it be not built upon my gospel, and is built upon the works of men, or upon the works of the devil, verily I say unto you they have joy in their works for a season, and by and by the end cometh, and they are hewn down and cast into the fire, from whence there is no return." ( 3 Nephi 27:3-11 , bold added) Problem summary The LDS Church did not always have the name "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints". On April 6, 1830, LDS church leaders met together presumably to fulfill the requirements of the laws of the land, and they named their church consistent with the admonition of the Book of Mormon, "The Church of Christ." On May 3, 1834, Joseph Smith, as moderator, made a motion to change the name of the church to, "The Church of the Latter Day Saints," which was adopted by unanimous vote (The Evening and Morning Star, vol. 2, no. 20, p. 160, May 1834; History of the Church 2:62). He took CHRIST right out of the name!

Four years later, on April 26, 1838, it was again changed to "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints" and has remained thus since. (The hyphen in 'Latter-day' was add about a century or so later to be grammatically correct). The chronology of the name is: 1830: Church of Christ 1834: The Church of the Latter Day Saints 1838: The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints Why did Joseph change the Name of the Church after God already told him 4 years before what to name it? "In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as He gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it The Church of Christ until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to The Church of the Latter Day Saints, dropping out the name of Christ entirely..." (An Address to All Believers In Christ Whitmer, p. 73). Now to be called the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS).

The following photograph of the Kirtland temple still bears the name 'The Church of the Latter Day Saints'. ALSO Bible issue If we are to use the rule found in Third Nephi 27, are we then to assume that the church the Apostle Paul addresses in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 was in a state of apostasy? After all, Paul refers to it as "the church of the Thessalonians"! Consider also that Paul refers to the body of believers in Corinth as "the church of God which is at Corinth" (See 1 Corinthians 1:2). Response by the Church We regret that we could not find this issue discussed comprehensively in any church publication or website. However we found several responses from LDS apologists and LDS leaders which we cite below. True believing member response. Richard Lloyd Anderson, a professor of religion and history at Brigham Young University , attempted to explain the 1834 change. He says, "This alteration was not seen as a de-emphasis of Christ; on the contrary, it was done in hopes that the name of the Church would more clearly reflect the fact that Christ was at its head" (A Sure Foundation, pg. 195).

Critic's response. How dropping the name of Christ in order to "reflect the fact that Christ was at its head" seems confusing at best. Dr. Anderson feels justified by the fact that, even though the official title of the church omitted the name of Christ, it was still known in the minds of many as the Church of Christ and so he argues that the church's name had really never changed. Not all are in agreement with this conclusion as is seen by the writings of Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer: "In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as he gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it the Church of Christ until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to `The Church of the Latter Day Saints,' dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain" (Address to All Believers in Christ, pg. 73).

It would be easier for Anderson to admit that the LDS Church spent much of its first decade without having the name of Jesus in its title. Does this make it an apostate church? If the Mormon answers "no," then the argument made today based upon 3 Nephi 27:8 is moot. This name, Anderson adds, is "descriptive of divine restoration" indicating "Jesus is at its head." With obvious pride, Anderson believes that "...the full title, `The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,' is striking by comparison to the names of the scores of churches that obscure their Christianity under the label of their founders or of some characteristic belief or aspect of church organization" (A Sure Foundation, pg. 196). It is hypocritical of Mormons who condemn Christian churches for not having the name of Christ in their official title when their church has not always had that distinction. Also, many other churches use Christ in their name so the LDS Church is hardly unique in that regard including several churches known as the 'Church of Christ' which had that name long before the LDS church was first named in 1830. Apologist Response from SHIELDS SHIELDS is one of the best LDS apologetic organizations in our opinion.

They offered this response regarding the name change issue: Much is made of the name of the Church by its missionaries, who claim that there was no church on the face of the earth called "The Church of Jesus Christ" when the "church" was restored in 1830.What is the explanation for the fact that the Church changed its name twice in the first eight years of its existence?According to The Book of Mormon (3 Nephi 27:7-8) it was to be called after Christ's name; and for the first four years, it was called "Church of Christ."In 1834 the name was changed to "Church of the Latter-day Saints."Finally, in 1838, it became "The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints."Wouldn't one think that there is a serious problem of contradiction here, because Jesus made a point to instruct the Nephites on what the Church should be named, and one should reasonably assume that Christ would have informed Joseph in 1830 exactly what he wanted the Church to be called, yet He didn't speak to the point until 1838--after two different names had been used already? Response by John A.

Tvedtnes Revised 12 August 2008 (for accuracy and completeness) The “Church of Christ” was incorporated in New York State in 1830, and employed that name for the first several years of its existence. A letter of the First Presidency of the Church, dated 22 January 1834, noted “the organization of the Church of Christ, or the Church of the Latter-day Saints, on the 6th of April, 1830” (History of the Church 2:22). The following month, we read the “Minutes of the Organization of the High Council of the Church of Christ of Latter-day Saints, Kirtland, February 17, 1834” (History of the Church 2:28), employing a name nearly identical to the one used today. On 3 May 1834, Kirtland was the scene of “a Conference of the Elders of the Church of Christ” at which “a motion was made by Sidney Rigdon, and seconded by Newel K.

Whitney, that this Church be known hereafter by the name of ‘The Church of the Latter-day Saints.' Remarks were made by the members, after which the motion passed by unanimous vote” (History of the Church 2:62-63). This name change did not come as a result of revelation, but by vote. Significantly, when the Lord finally did speak in 1838, it was the name he gave the church that became official and has remained so ever since. “For thus shall my church be called in the last days, even The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints” (D&C 115:4). The question itself distorts what the Book of Mormon says, by leaving out the context of 3 Nephi 27:7-8. Reading from the beginning of the chapter, we note that the Nephite disciples had already been traveling about, preaching and baptizing, and that when they “were gathered together and were united in mighty prayer and fasting” (vs.

1), Jesus came to them and they asked him “Lord, we will that thou wouldst tell us the name whereby we shall call this church; for there are disputations among the people concerning this matter” (vs. 3). From this, it is clear that Christ did not name the Church he established among the Nephites until after the Church had already begun growing in numbers. This is parallel to what happened in the latter-day Church, when different names were applied until the Lord himself revealed precisely how the Church should be named. In the case of both the Nephite and latter-day Churches, the question of the name was not settled until Christ revealed his will. Two other points should be made: 1) Even before the Nephite disciples prayed to know how they should call the Church, “they who were baptized in the name of Jesus were called the church of Christ” (3 Nephi 26:21). For some reason, there were disagreements about the precise name that should be used. 2) Latter-day Saints look to the scriptures, not to missionaries, as the final source of truth. Moreover, the name of the Church, while important, is not what makes the Church true or false.

When answering the Nephite disciples' questions about the name of the Church, Christ said, “but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8). Being built on the gospel of Christ and having authority from him is far more important than the name of the Church. Reference: SHIELDS website Editor's comments Both the critics and defenders of the faith have compelling points to make. The editors of this section give their own opinion: Is it reasonable to assume that God would periodically change the name of his church?If Jesus Christ is the central character of God's religion on earth and all things are to be done in his name, is it reasonable to assume that God would instruct his church leaders to entirely leave out the name of Christ from the period of May 3, 1834 to April 26, 1838? If Jesus is really the head of the LDS Church then what possible reason could there be for the name changes? Why would Jesus instruct Joseph as to the name in 1830 then change it in 1834 and then change it again in 1838?

Why wouldn't Jesus get it right the first time? We can't understand why he would take the name of Christ completely out of the name of the church for four whole years. One possible reason is that the Church is really run entirely by men without any real instruction or revelation from God. If they couldn't even get the name right for eight years then what else might be wrong? Sidney Rigdon's role If we take David Whitmer's assertion that Sidney Rigdon helped influence Joseph to change the name of the church, then that causes additional questions to be asked. Why would the prophet of the church, who had formed and already served as president of the church for four years, agree to changing the name merely by having one of his counselors suggest it? This may support some critic's assertions that Sidney Rigdon was a much bigger influence in creating the church than commonly taught. The name Mormon Although the LDS Church's official name is not Mormon and the leadership has done its best to have the world refer to it by the current official name or the name 'Church of Christ', the vast majority of the world still only knows the LDS Church as the 'Mormon Church'.

We can't help but wonder if it is really all part of Heavenly Father's divine plan to have his Son's church be known by a nickname? The Name of the Church The Name of the Church The Name of the Church Related What Is a Latter-day Saint? I have thought a lot about why the Savior gave the nine-word name to His restored Church [The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints]. It may seem long, but if we think of it as a descriptive overview of what the Church is, it suddenly becomes wonderfully brief, candid, and straightforward. How could any description be more direct and clear and yet expressed in such few words? Every word is clarifying and indispensable. The word The indicates the unique position of the restored Church among the religions of the world. The words Church of Jesus Christ declare that it is His Church. In the Book of Mormon, Jesus taught, “How be it my church save it be called in my name?

For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man [like Mormon] then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel” (3 Nephi 27:8). Of Latter-day explains that it is the same Church as the Church that Jesus established during His mortal ministry but restored in these latter days. We know there was a falling away, or an apostasy, necessitating the restoration of His true and complete Church in our time. Saints means that its members follow Him and strive to do His will, keep His commandments, and prepare once again to live with Him and our Heavenly Father in the future. Saint simply refers to those who seek to make their lives holy by covenanting to follow Christ. The name the Savior has given to His Church tells us exactly who we are and what we believe. We believe that Jesus Christ is the Savior and the Redeemer of the world. He atoned for all who would repent of their sins, and He broke the bands of death and provided the resurrection from the dead. We follow Jesus Christ.

And as King Benjamin said to his people, so I reaffirm to all of us today, “Ye should remember to retain [His] name written always in your hearts” (Mosiah 5:12). The Name of God’s Church | Mormonism Research Ministry Mormonism Research Ministry By Eric Johnson Most Mormons believe their church (the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints (LDS)) should be considered Christian since it has Jesus’ name in its official title. In his book written in 1991, LDS author Stephen E. Robinson summed up this idea when he asserted: “…Is not the name of our church The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints? Do we not worship Christ? …The Utah Saints shook their heads and wondered how it was possible that anyone could seriously doubt that the Latter-day Saints were Christian” (Are Mormons Christians?, pg. vii). The Book of Mormon says that the true church must have the name of Christ in it. 3 Nephi 27:8 reads: “And how be it my church save it be called in my name?

For if a church be called in Moses’ name then it be Moses’ church; or if it be called in the name of a man then it be the church of a man; but if it be called in my name then it is my church, if it so be that they are built upon my gospel.” If we are to use the rule found in Third Nephi 27, are we then to assume that the church the apostle Paul addresses in 1 Thessalonians 1:1 was in a state of apostasy? After all, Paul refers to it as “the church of the Thessalonians”! Consider also that Paul refers to the body of believers in Corinth as “the church of God which is at Corinth” (See 1 Corinthians 1:2). Another point is that the LDS Church’s title has not always had Christ’s name since its foundation on April 6, 1830. The Mormon scripture Doctrine and Covenants 20:1 reports that the original name of the church was the “Church of Christ.” In 1834, the name was changed to “The Church of Latter-day Saints” (History of the Church 2:63).

This took place at a priesthood conference at which Joseph Smith was present. The vote was unanimous. Note that the name of Christ was completely omitted. This was the church’s official title until April 26, 1838 when it was changed again to its current name. According to former LDS Apostle LeGrand Richards, a millennium and a half of the “complete apostasy” of Christianity necessitated a name change. Richards said that “the designation `Latter-day Saints’ was given to differentiate between the members of the church of Jesus Christ in this dispensation and those of the church established by Jesus in the meridian of time” (A Marvelous Work and a Wonder, pg. 130). Richard Lloyd Anderson, a professor of religion and history at Brigham Young University, attempted to explain the 1834 change. He says, “This alteration was not seen as a deemphasis of Christ; on the contrary, it was done in hopes that the name of the Church would more clearly reflect the fact that Christ was at its head” (A Sure Foundation, pg. 195). How dropping the name of Christ in order to “reflect the fact that Christ was at its head” seems confusing at best. Dr.

Anderson feels justified by the fact that, even though the official title of the church omitted the name of Christ, it was still known in the minds of many as the Church of Christ and so he argues that the church’s name had really never changed. Not all are in agreement with this conclusion as is seen by the writings of Book of Mormon witness David Whitmer: “In June, 1829, the Lord gave us the name by which we must call the church, being the same as he gave the Nephites. We obeyed His commandment, and called it the Church of Christ until 1834, when, through the influence of Sydney Rigdon, the name of the church was changed to `The Church of the Latter Day Saints,’ dropping out the name of Christ entirely, that name which we were strictly commanded to call the church by, and which Christ by His own lips makes so plain” (Address to All Believers in Christ, pg. 73). It would be easier for Anderson to admit that the LDS Church spent much of its first decade without having the name of Jesus in its title. Does this make it an apostate church?

If the Mormon answers “no,” then the argument made today based upon 3 Nephi 27:8 is moot. This name, Anderson adds, is “descriptive of divine restoration” indicating “Jesus is at its head.” With obvious pride, Anderson believes that “…the full title, `The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints,’ is striking by comparison to the names of the scores of churches that obscure their Christianity under the label of their founders or of some characteristic belief or aspect of church organization” (A Sure Foundation, pg. 196). Many Mormons may feel like Anderson because they misunderstand why the Christian Church has so many denominations. It is important for the Christian to point out that most denominations agree on the essential issues such as who God is and how mankind can receive eternal life. While these groups would agree on these essential issues, there is freedom in the “peripheral issues” on which Christians may “agree to disagree.” (For an example of this freedom, see 1 Corinthians 8:1ff and 10:14ff.) Besides, although there is much talk that all Mormons agree on everything, we have yet to find two Latter-day Saints who agree on every single theological doctrine.

So, while many Mormons are willing to have this freedom, they criticize the Christian denominations and say that their “divisiveness” is a symbol of an apostate church. Needless to say, this is a ridiculous assumption. Neither the title of a church nor a name a person may by called (i.e. Christian, evangelical, fundamentalist, etc.) can define true Christian belief. Rather, John 1:12 says, “But as many as received him, to them gave he power to become the sons of God, even to them that believe on his name.” A person is a saved individual if he or she has faith in the God and Jesus Christ of the Bible. We find it hypocritical of Mormons who condemn Christian churches for not having the name of Christ in their official title when their church has not always had that distinction. For more information on “Church and Culture,” click here . Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up | Religion Dispatches February 3, 2012 Mormon Numbers Not Adding Up The ascendancy of Mormonism as a world religion once seemed inevitable.

The year was 1984, and sociologist named Rodney Stark made a startling projection: the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints would grow to 267 million members by 2080. That’s the narrative drumbeat to which tens of thousands of young LDS men and women marched off to proselyting missions in Latin America and Asia during the 1980s and 1990s, as LDS Church membership shot up from 4.4 million to 11 million members. Mormons imbued this growth with theological significance as the fulfillment of a prophecy that the Church would one day “fill the earth”—a sense captured in this Church video . But new data suggests that Mormonism may no longer be (as it is often described) among the fastest-growing faiths in the United States. Instead, American Mormons appear to be settling into the twenty-first century as a maturing minority having an increasingly hard time holding onto younger members. Official LDS Church statistics for 2011 count 6,144,582 Mormons in the United States in 2011, comprising about 2% of the nation’s population.

Church statistics also show a 30% membership increase between 1990 and 2008—a rate double general US population growth. But recent studies tell a different story—different because whereas LDS Church records count anyone who has ever been baptized, demographers and pollsters count only those who currently identify themselves as Mormon. Those are the parameters for the landmark Trinity College American Religious Identification Survey: a two-decade project that has produced the largest and most accurate database of self-reported religious identification ever compiled, with 100,000 randomly sampled participants. According to Rick Phillips and Ryan Cragun, the authors of a study of Mormons based on ARIS data, self-identified adult Mormons make up not 2% but rather 1.4% of the adult US population—that’s about 4.4 million LDS adults. Phillips and Cragun also place LDS growth rates not at 30% but at 16%—a rate on par with general US population growth.

“Despite a large missionary force and a persistent emphasis on growth,” Phillips and Cragun write, “Mormons are actually treading water with respect to their per capita presence in the U.S.” In fact, additional studies by Cragun and Phillips show that retention rates of young people (young men especially) raised Mormon have dropped substantially in the last decade: from 92.6% in the 1970s–2000s to 64.4% from 2000–2010. Rising rates of disaffiliation go a long way towards explaining the gap between LDS Church records and the ARIS population estimates. Those who do continue to identify as Mormon, according to data released by the Pew Forum in January, form a confident, cohesive core that is deeply invested in LDS institutional life. The Pew Forum found that 77% of self-identified Mormons reported attending church weekly, and 65% reported regular participation in temple worship, a benchmark of highly observant Mormonism. Those are eye-popping numbers that don’t quite match up to what most Mormons experience week-to-week in their congregations.

(The problem may be sample bias: the Pew located many of its Mormon respondents through oversampling in core areas of the Mormon culture region, where attendance rates trend higher.) The Mormons surveyed by Pew also indicate high levels of life satisfaction, as well as a sense that Mormons are misunderstood in the U.S.: 46% said Mormons experience discrimination. Insularity is also strong among Pew-sampled LDS people, with 57% reporting that all or most of their friends are also LDS. Social insularity as well as familial and kinship ties and feelings of religious certainty contribute to the cohesiveness of the self-identified Mormon core. But taken together the Pew and ARIS numbers suggest that while the highly active LDS core is highly self-assured, it may also be shrinking—a fact not immediately evident in Church membership statistics. The numbers also suggest that cultural or heritage identity sense of Mormonism may be weakening, especially at the margins of the core and among those who disaffiliate. That may be bad news for twenty-first century Mormonism: other stable American minority faiths like Judaism rely on cultural identity to draw individuals back into religious life throughout the life cycle and across changes in belief and practice.

Today, after decades of institutional emphasis on orthodox belief and behavior, it may be difficult for some in the highly observant Mormon core to imagine a cultural Mormonism that enfranchises the less observant. But as the 2012 presidential contest brings increased scrutiny and self-awareness of Mormonism as a culture (complete with its own foodways ), perhaps the time is right for Mormons to explore how to nourish and strengthen Mormon identity, even if our twenty-first century numbers don’t live up to the projections. Share on Next articleBarbara Ehrenreich’s Bright-Sided Explores the Dark Side of Positive Thinking john zimmerman The numbers in this article are not what’s adding up.

And the conclusions are based on the bad math: “6,144,582 Mormons in the United States in 2011, comprising about 2% of the nation’s population” “According to Rick Phillips and Ryan Cragun, the authors of a study of Mormons based on ARIS data, self-identified adult Mormons make up not 2% but rather 1.4% of the adult US population—that’s about 4.4 million LDS adults.” This is comparison of 6,144,582 total Mormons in the 1st study versus 4,400,000 Mormon adults in the 2nd study. Of course they are not equal thus the number-based conclusions such as the following are erroneous: “while the highly active LDS core is highly self-assured, it may also be shrinking—a fact not immediately evident in Church membership statistics.” As shown, the reason the “fact” isn’t immediately evident is that the numbers it’s based on don’t add up.

Jim Platt The mormon church is counting those baptized and since they baptize for the dead, their claimed numbers will keep climbing until they run out of dead people to baptize…only problem dead aren’t blackmailed into pay a tithe…*S* Robynn Peterson I know that the proxy baptisms (baptisms for the dead) are NOT counted as “Members” or “New Members” That is a weird notion that has been floating around for decades. But it is untrue! I have a lot of other critisims of the LDS Church but that is not one of them. 2/3 of Mormons are inactive A key prob w/ mormon #s is that many conversions/baptisms just don’t stick. Only about 1/3 of members are actually retained. A recent investigation for *worldwide* #s, places active members at 4.5 million. There’s tremendous social pressure for adherents (esp. males) to go on proselytizing missions and to come home w/ tales of conversions. Often this imperative fails to inform the newly recruited of the high demands the religion actually require – and they bail w/o officially removing themselves from the records.

The boastful ‘fastest growing religion’ doesn’t account for true attrition rates and at that record – they really suck. IOW – for every member they actually gain, they lose two more. If this were to receive a letter grade, it’s a solid F. Not something you’ll likely see touted by the Mormon PR reps, that’s for sure. And if there’s anything the religion excels at and invests heavily in — it’s PR. Great at ‘spin’ and superficial misleading appearances across the board. If missionaries were upfront about the religion’s true expectations and what it takes to go to Mormon Heaven and to be an acceptable church member — both wrt doctrine *and* social responsibilities – BEFORE dipping the converts underwater — many young men’s status and reputation w/n the church would be sullied upon their return. Good Mormons make more Mormons, it’s just the deeply seated Mormon way. Oh and female Mormons can’t get into Mormon Heaven, unless they are married to a *Good* Mormon man. Men, OTOH, not only can get to heaven w/o a Mormon wife — they can pick up extra celestial wives there too. Official doctrine is inherently sexist, hierarchical, repressive and authoritarian.

A woman’s husband can become a God and she is relegated to serve him in heaven. It’s outmoded and bigoted. And simply can’t keep pace w/ the more civilized world. But then again, just several decades ago the Mormon Prophet claimed Native Americans that were stripped away from their families and placed into Mormon hands were becoming more ‘pure’ by evidence of their skin color becoming lighter (!!!) *and* Mormons were actively encouraged to uproot Native American children and replace their culture with ‘true teachings’. See, dark skin is a doctrinal curse of perpetual wickedness. But dark skin (and impurities) can be cured w/ Mormon intervention. Nah, that’s not messed up at all. Course the practice of manipulating Native American parents to give up their children is now illegal & the accompanying claims so laughably ludicrous – that this is just one of many severe blemishes they try to desperately sweep under the rug. Still today though, they pitch hard for Latin Americans to join them by making claims that are known to be false. That is, that they are the Lost Tribe (they’re not – we *know* that genetically).

Moreover, conversion efforts are *concentrated* in regions where people lack the proper education to know otherwise. It’s targeted & exploitative esp. considering that the converts are then expected to pay 10% of their *net* income to the church. It’s ultimately embezzlement for those that often times are the ones *least* able to afford it. And that’s not a stable way to keep converts. But it is a way to *speciously* boost enrollment records. And that matters, A LOT. Cuz there *are* appearances to keep up, after all… Correction! Sorry! That should be *gross* income – not net! Fed up with Mormons Mormons: Get out ! Get out of Arizona ! Go back to Utah, you’re not welcome, you are backwards and antiquated, every other growing population in this world values diversity, you do not. You value racism and are exclusionary. In 50 years you are going end up in the crappiest desert in Utah in internment camps like the Japanese during WWII. The USA is a melting pot, accept and embrace that or you are finished ! Joshua Blake Smith Oh my, this is hilarious.

Haha… Did you know that the number of mormons WORLDWIDE is 15 million… NOT ONLY IN THE UNITED STATES YAH DINGBAT! I almost can not believe that Joanna Brooks wrote an article with an obviously incorrect thesis statement, but it speaks for itself and you have to believe it happened. SHARE THIS WITH FRIENDS TO SHOW THE HILARITY OF THE ARTICLE Joshua Blake Smith I couldn’t have better said it myself. john zimmerman Thank you. TigranMetz Do you realize that Brooks was actually being pretty kind by only talking about US Mormons? Activity rates in the US are quite a bit higher than the rest of the world as a whole, with overall activity rates at well under 40%. Joshua Blake Smith Oh yah? Show me an accurate source. Joshua Blake Smith Nice broad statements you got there. With ideas that completely imply the opposite of all justifiable evidence. Give me one reliable source that completely proves your “ideas” and in no way is lacking logic, emotional advertisement, or logical fallicies. TigranMetz As we all know the Church isn’t exactly forthcoming with exact data.

I don’t think I can send links here, but check out the article “New Almanac Offers Look at the World of Mormon Membership” at religionnews dot com. The best available data can be found at cumorah dot com, an independent and incredibly well researched site run by a few LDS statisticians. A few highlights: – Active membership worldwide is about 30%. – Less than half of individuals claimed as members by the LDS Church worldwide identify the LDS Church as their faith of preference. Joshua Blake Smith I read the article, and the only thing that was partially true is that 30% of the church attends 95% of the time. I also went to that church growth site. Neither of the sites said anything about: “Less than half of individuals claimed as members by the LDS Church worldwide identify the LDS Church as their faith of preference.” Let me clarify, everyone who is above 8, has been baptized, has chosen to become a member of the church by notifying their bishop, is alive, has not been ex-communicated from the church is counted in that number of 15 million. 1. The article said that the church had problems with overall attendance (especially in latin america, which is true). 2.

It is often hard to convert new members in certain lands where culture, experience, and laws interfere. It said nothing about how the LDS church falsifies their count of members. All of this seems legitimate to me. TigranMetz That’s interesting you dispute that quote, because I pulled it verbatim from the cumorah website. The easiest way to find it would be to search the sentence in quotes on Google. The first hit will take you to the proper page (Internet Research 101, bro). I also got the the 30% statistic from the same page. I guess the definition of “active” is semantic but even the most generous definitions don’t raise that global ratio past 40%. The information providing the impetus of my original reply to your first, somewhat childish, post is also on that page. Of the number of members claimed by the LDS church the ratio that self identifies as LDS “varies from the mid-sixties in the United States to 20-27% in Latin America”, (which is interesting considering that Latin America boasts the lion’s share of overall membership numbers outside the US). Lastly, where did I claim that “the LDS church falsifies their count of members”?

I said that the LDS church isn’t forthcoming with exact data, which it’s not. I wouldn’t necessarily expect it to include any disheartening stats in the General Conference verbal report, but I do expect detailed data to be made available somewhere. Joshua Blake Smith Oh, so in your mind it makes sense that the LDS church wouldn’t want to publish it’s data even if it does have that many members, and you weren’t implying at all that the church doesn’t disclose it’s information because it doesn’t want the world to find out it has as many members. Ok then. However worldwide, many out-of-church studies have been done to prove that the LDS faith (comparatively by ratio to other faiths) has one of the highest numbers of active members. TigranMetz Look over your 1st paragraph and get back to me. It doesn’t make sense. As to your second paragraph, I’ll throw your initial reply to me right back at you, “Oh yah? Show me an accurate source.” A good apples to apples statistical comparison with the LDS church is with the 7th Day Adventist church. They come from the same cultural milieu and are both proselyting churches.

The Adventists are 33 years younger than the LDS, yet they have about 3 million more members. Their retention rates are about double those of the LDS church (even using the most generous stats for the latter). They also publish very detailed membership and financial reports (again, unlike the latter). Joshua Blake Smith Look at beliefs and practices. TigranMetz It’s not that I can’t read sarcasm. That paragraph just grammatically doesn’t make sense. I thought you would cite that 2008 Pew Research survey. First things first, I’m more inclined towards the numbers in the cumorah research because it’s significantly more recent and globally comprehensive. Second, the Pew survey is within America only, which doesn’t make it a “worldwide, out-of-church survey.” Yes, Mormons are above average when it comes to weekly attendance among denominations in the US, which isn’t saying much vis-a-vis converts because the overwhelming majority of active Mormons in the US grew up in the faith. At this point, we’re just arguing semantics. My overall point in engaging in dialogue with you was to demonstrate that Joanna Brooks was actually being generous by not including activity rates outside the US, which are not good.

Case in point, the activity rate among members in my mission was less than 20%. The largest branch had about 450 members and around 40 were active. You’re right that culture and laws can sometimes interfere and make retention difficult. That being said, have you ever considered that convert retention rates might be so low (both inside and outside the US) because people aren’t getting anything spiritually significant out of their membership? How is it that the 7th Day Adventist church (a church originally based on a false prediction of Christ’s 2nd Coming) retains its converts at more than double the rate of the LDS? Joshua Blake Smith It’s because being a Mormon at requires lots of work and time (ex: Jehovah’s Witnesses) as well as giving up many things which are often addictive. If a person’s been a member at least once in their life they know that if they’re not performing those things they aren’t really members. So when the surveys come around to those who know they are not participating as much as they should in the church, those people know to say that they are not Mormon.

However most other churches don’t require nearly as much time and effort and most church don’t require a standard of living to be a member. So it’s easy to say that you’re a member of a church you don’t attend often, but just as much as the other person who says they’re not Mormon. This occurs frequently with Catholics and Jews. People aren’t religions at all who say they’re members of a church. Now because staying a mormon member requires so much effort, many people think it’s too hard to do all of the things which are required. Fellow members always try to keep people reminded of what the spiritual benefits are for being staying a member, but some don’t have the per-say “Spiritual Maturity/Experience” to see them clearly enough. TigranMetz Are you serious? There is so much wrong with what you just said (from both the perspective of a member and a non-member). If those are the kinds of things you’re deluding yourself into thinking to explain these troubling statistics, no amount of fact or truth will help you realize just how much trouble the church is in right now.

If you really want to know why so many people are leaving the church (most just go inactive without officially resigning, thus still being counted as members in General Conference), the results of this study are a real eye opener: Two years ago, church historian Elder Marlin Jensen, acknowledged that members are leaving in droves, largely over historical problems, social issues, doctrinal contradictions, etc. He stated, “Maybe since Kirtland, we’ve never had a period of – I’ll call it apostasy, like we’re having now.” (If you need a quick refresher, the crisis in Kirtland he was referring to was a massive schism that came as a result of the collapse of Joseph Smith’s fradulent bank, the Kirtland Safety Society, due to an economic recession and the fact that Smith lied to the members about the amount of cash reserves the bank had in an attempt to get people to bank there.) Joshua Blake Smith I’m just going to say it- your a sad case. You have a problem. Only someone with personal issues goes around the internet, trolling about Mormons in their spare time.

Hey, the opposite same can be said for me, but you’re the aggressor and the law of “moral higher ground” gives me the advantage. I’m sorry that’s just the way it is. Every single time you give an arguement, it’s based off of some crap that some anti-mormon completely made up or twisted until it was no longer distinguishable. Lies, lies, lies. I don’t have anything against you personally, I’m just frustrated that you aren’t even thinking about my logical points, as I do for yours. I spend time trying to show you the truth and you just whine like an ignorant child who wants to stay up all night. TigranMetz I can’t believe you’re really that obtuse. Which one of us is the troll? Well, which one of us was the OP of this thread, slinging around 6th grade insults in all caps? Can you point out to me which arguments or evidence I presented that are “anti-mormon crap”? If you respond, you better be able to back your assertions up. Make no mistake, I am very well read in LDS history. On second thought, don’t bother responding.

It’s clear this isn’t going anywhere. Peace. Joshua Blake Smith Thanks for that exit, now I don’t have to show you the door. fiona64 You wouldn’t know an accurate source if it bit you in the arse. fiona64 Aw, sweetie. Do you save this to your computer so you can just copy-pasta your grammatically incorrect nonsense at anyone who dares to question you and your priesthood authority? Because this is verbatim what you said to me when I proved you wrong, too. You’re laughable. fiona64 Ignore him; that’s the identical paragraph he flung at me in another thread when I proved him wrong with actual sources and he had an angry little Mormon hissy-fit. fiona64 Do you imagine that no one has met Mormons? Hell, if you were the first one I’d ever encountered (and you’re not), you would confirm FUWM’s assessment all on your own.

Zane Lots to respond to, but I’ll stick to the errors about “Mormon Heaven.” First, you cannot talk about “heaven” by comparing it to “a more civilized world.” Something spiritual/ethereal/whatever you think heaven may or may not be, cannot be scrutinized under the microscope of the temporal. That said, men cannot go to this “mormon heaven” without a wife. In fact, it is the opposite of what you said. It is men who will seemingly have trouble if they avoid marriage in this life. Furthermore, what is promised to men and women, as seen in the book of Revelations, is to become Kings and Queens, Priests and Priestesses. Notice: men are not elevated above women. The idea of men as Gods and women as servants is both nonsensical and straight odd. If godhood is what is to come under mormon doctrine (only a theory), then it will surely follow the same format as the royalty and priesthood taught in the scriptures. Gods and goddesses. I’m not saying there hasn’t been sexism in the church, or racism or prejudice, etc.

But that is due to the imperfect nature of men, and surely as it is found in even the most “civilized world,” it will be found, sadly and unfortunately, in all religious groups. But for the mormons, it is not doctrinally founded, and you are wrong. If you want female empowerment and equality, you’ll find it in the mormon church. It is trumpeted by the leaders, seen in the oldest female organization in the world, taught as doctrine, and found in the women who make up the church. fiona64 If the cult keeps you too busy to question, that’s a good thing. If the cult keeps you too busy to talk to outsiders, that’s a good thing. For the cult. Get a life fiona64 Oh, sweetie. I have an outstanding life. Why? Because I was smart enough not to get roped into your cult. Marcus_Z If people would focus on living a good life today and helping others around them, rather than silly superstitions that have no evidence to back them up, how much better would the world be? cynth You will NOT find female empowerment and equality in the Mormon church.

You WILL find leaders trumpeting it, as though if they say it often enough they can make people believe it. cynth Not true, people are counted until they are well over 100, even if the church has lost track of them. Dead people are counted in that fake 15 mil # cynth Reference please, for those studies? F Zuber Look at Mormon reality today and back to the beginning. There are plenty of priests and priestcraft, but no priestesses. There are lots of kings, but women serve as concubines, not queens. James Bond We Mormons are just superior and that’s just the way it is, we will get our multiple wives in our exclusive heaven because we abstain from the evils of coffee and porn (ok actually Utah leads the nation in online porn subscriptions so scratch that one). Anyway we enjoy the privilege of always being morally correct even in the face of conflicted historical evidence, sorry that’s just the way God wants it. Also gay people can just choose to be straight or not marry at all. eastcoast71 What in the world are you talking about?? zelda You voted up on your own comment? Does that self validation make you feel better?

Your use of caps don’t make your point any more valid, either. Doesn’t help when you immaturely call people DINGBAT, either. Another apologist that can’t take the truth. You belong to a cult. Joseph Smith was a con man, a treasure hunter, he peered into a top hat (hilarious) ! He found and carried? Gold plates that would have weighed how much? (impossible) and only were seen with “spiritual eyes”. He lied about the funeral papyrus/Book Of Abraham (didn’t plan on the Rosetta Stone deciphering and revealing the truth about that. He slept with other mens wives all while cheating on Emma. There is NO proof of any great war, no archeological evidence your cult is real. The “church” and members are a hateful organization that is dying out. But, keep convincing yourself of those inflated numbers. zelda “highest active members” that is funny! zelda Complex much? Get over the persecution thing. It is old. Richard Gould Madsen There’s nothing new in this article. You can tear apart any religion on the planet. Just name the religion and I can make it look like a mess.

You take any belief, put a special twist on it and I can make it look ugly. But, what’s the point? So, we all end up with black eyes and we all hate each other? Christians need to stop bickering among themselves and unite. Danny Just for entertainment I’ve been reading comments. You say sweetie fairly regularly. Not trying to troll or anything, it’s just fun to see the word choices people make when they want to be condescending. I do it too in some way I’m sure, everyone does, just….really bored and felt like sharing fiona64 He’s a “priesthood holder”; of course he’s going to break his arm patting himself on the back. RossGa spinner145 Sorry but if you’re going to trumpet these membership numbers to the world, you can’t just expect everybody to take you at your word. This is not “tearing down other people’s beliefs” but is in fact an attempt to quantify who actually does believe. If the results hurt your feelings because they contradict what you want to believe about Mormonism’s growth, that’s not the fault of the study. Richard Madsen

Question: What is the full name of the Mormon Church?
Answer: Church of Jesus Christ of Latter Day Saints